De-Escalate Trial for the Head and neck NSSG Dr Eleanor Aynsley Consultant Clinical Oncologist
3 HPV+ H&N A distinct disease entity Leemans et al., Nature Reviews, 2011
4 Good news Improved response to CRT Meta-analysis: HPV +ve 28% reduced risk of dying 49% reduced risk of local recurrence Ragin, Int J Cancer, 2007 2 yr OS : 95% vs 62% Fakhry et al. J. Natl Cancer Inst., 2008
CRT toxicity in oropharyngeal patients Higher survival rates in younger patients = living longer with morbidity Acute toxicity Late toxicity (5 yrs) Grade 3-5 toxicity Severe, life threatening Grade 3-5 toxicity Severe, life threatening CRT: 202 events in 109 living pts = 185% Double those treated with RT alone Calais, JNCI, 1999 66 % of 27 living pts with CRT 56% swallowing problems 56% xerostomia Denis, JCO, 2004 5
Treatment paradigms in the new age 3 risk categories (not simply HPV +/-): Low risk: HPV + / no or low smokers (50% patients) OS 3 yr 93% Intermediate: HPV + / smokers / N2b-N3 or HPV - / no or low smokers / T2-3 OS 3 yr 70.8% High risk: HPV - / high smokers or low smokers w/ T4 OS 3 yr 46.3% Ang, NEJM, 2010 6
EGFR inhibitors biological rationale Epidermal Growth Factor Receptors (EGFR) expressed in normal epithelial tissues EGFR overexpressed in human cancers, including colon, rectum and head & neck KEY: Cell growth = EGF receptor = TGF alpha Cell Apoptosis = EGF = Cetuximab Cetuximab inhibits growth and survival of tumour cells that overexpress EGFR as shown in vitro assays and in vivo animal studies Cell Cell growth Apoptosis Inhibits growth & induction of apoptosis by blocking phosphorylation and activation of receptor-associated kinases 8
EGFR inhibitors biological rationale Mechanism of action of Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) Receptor blockers Anti-tumour effects of blocking EGFR Radiosensitizer by blocking the radio-resistance effect induced by RT through EGF and TGF-alpha RT Secretion of excess TGF alpha & EGF (in tumour) Acts on EGFR & stimulates carcinogenic activity Resistance to RT Song, Oncology, 2004 9
EGFR inhibitors clinical rationale Significant survival difference in favour of cetuximab + RT compared to RT alone. HR death = 0.74 (p = 0.03) Bonner, NEJM, 2006 OPSCC were only tumour subset in Bonner trial to show significant survival difference at 5 years HR death = 0.68 Bonner, Lancet Oncol, 2010 11
EGFR inhibitors clinical rationale Toxicity: Cetuximab compared to RT in short or long term No increased toxicity or QOL effects Apart from skin toxicity Curran, 2007 Severe late toxicity: Chemoradiation 43% (Machtay, 2008) Cetuximab + RT 20% (Bonner, 2006) 12
Most recent data on EGFR and HPV 108 patients, 18 HPV + Median F/U = 35 months P16+ve Cetuximab better OS and DFS than cisplatin OS 88% vs 60% (p=0.01) DFS 75% vs 47% (p=0.01) P16-ve No difference in survival or DFS 13
14 Why De-ESCALaTE? Standard platin-based chemoradiotherapy causes acute toxicity and long-term sequelae Cetuximab has been shown to be effective in the management of SCCHN and is potentially less toxic Head and neck is the 6 th most common cancer HPV+OPSCC appears to be a distinct disease entity Increasing incidence of OPSCC attributed to rise in HPV related OPSCC Affects younger patients who can live with side effects for decades Primary aim of decreasing toxicity and increasing quality of life
15 OVERVIEW Phase III, randomised, international, multi-centre, open-label clinical trial Cisplatin + RT versus cetuximab + RT Patients with Human Papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+OPSCC) Registration Cohort Study (HPV-) Translational research: Blood, oral fluid & tissue collection
TRIAL SCHEMA 16
17 STUDY DESIGN: Objectives Primary Objective: by To compare the severe (acute and late) toxicity (Grade 3-5) caused by cetuximab and RT to that caused cisplatin and RT in patients with low-risk HPV+OPSCC. Secondary Objectives: Compare overall number of events of acute severe toxicity between treatment arms (defined as occurring during treatment or within 90 days of end of treatment) and compare overall number of events of late severe toxicity between treatment arms (defined as occurring more than 90 days up to two years from end of treatment). Compare the quality of life outcomes assessed by EORTC C30 and HN35 between the two treatment arms. Compare the effect on swallowing of the two treatment arms (assessed by MDADI and by PEG or RIG utilisation rate at 1 and 2 years). Compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment arms (assessed by EuroQoL-5D). Compare overall survival, recurrence and metastasis between the two arms.
Patient Eligibility Inclusion criteria American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Stage III-IVa (T3N0-T4N0, and T1N1-T4N3) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) tumours Clinical multidisciplinary team decision to treat with primary curative cisplatin chemoradiotherapy No previous treatment for the primary tumour, including surgery, neck dissection or tracheostomy [except node biopsies or diagnostic tonsillectomy] Medically fit (ECOG 0, 1 or 2) Adequate cardiovascular, haematological, renal and hepatic function Age > 18 years Written informed consent given Using adequate contraception [male and female participants]. Must take contraceptive measures during, and for at least three months after treatment. 18
Patient Eligibility (cont.) Exclusion Criteria Distant metastasis (i.e. AJCC TNM stage IVc disease) AJCC TNM Stage T1-2N0 disease Treated with primary radical surgery to the primary site (e.g. resection) Concurrent use of CYP3A4 inducers or inhibitors Serious cardiac illness or other medical conditions precluding the use of cisplatin or cetuximab Patients who have p16+ tumours who also have N2b, N2c or N3 nodal disease and whose lifetime smoking history is also more than 10 pack years (i.e. have both risk factors) Pregnant or lactating Previous treatment for any other cancer with cytotoxics, radiotherapy or anti-egfr therapies Inadequate renal, haematological or liver functions Patients with clinically significant hearing impairment Life expectancy less than 3 months Other malignancy within the past 3 years except basal cell skin cancer or pre-invasive carcinoma of the cervix 19
Patient selection schema-smokers 20
STUDY DRUGS * CISPLATIN (ARM A) 100 mg/m 2 administered intravenously on Days 1, 22 & 43 of radiotherapy Cisplatin given within 24 hrs of required day is acceptable CETUXIMAB (ARM B) Initial dose must occur 1 week prior to radiotherapy, 400 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 120 minutes Weeks 2-8 (concurrent with RT): 250 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 60 mins. prior to radiation therapy Radiation therapy should be given within 24 hrs of starting cetuximab infusion *For more detailed information, please always refer to the Summary of Product Characteristics and current protocol 22
23 RADIOTHERAPY (RT) Dose: 70GY in 35 fractions RT given over 7 weeks Modality: Bilateral RT: IMRT Unilateral RT: IMRT or 3D-conformal radiotherapy Strict RT Quality Assurance SOP http://www.rttrialsqa.org.uk/ - Two outlining protocols: anatomical or volumetric
TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH Blood, oral fluid, and tissue collection Choice of collection (Registration Form) Optional on a per-patient basis Separate consent form (De-ESCALaTE HPV Collect) Translational Research SOPs provided 25
JCUH experience Opened August 2013 4 patients so far, 3/4 had cetuximab Example: 59 F never smoked, PS0 Lump in left neck and abnormal tonsil T4 N2b M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the left tonsil, left level II nodes involved
70 Gy in 35 fractions to CTV1 the primary tumour and left levels Ib and II 56 Gy in 35 fractions to the right level Ib and II and bilateral III-V
Dose volume histogram
Any questions?